royfellows
Well-known member
nice but damp said:
applies to society as well
Public safety, liability and great big 'oles
- Thread starter Badlad
- Start date
applies to society as well
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
You may feel a little better with this police officer's response, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-31145108royfellows said:
I have been AFK over the weekend and unable to answer some of the points aimed at me. The OP was a genuine attempt to encourage some discussion on the subject of caves and public safety which was highlighted for me during a snowy visit to Gaping Gill last week. I am interested in the opinions of forum users as this issue has some relevance to wider discussions about access restrictions which are taking place in the caving community at the moment. There seems little consistency in approach around the UK as some caves are locked on the grounds of public safety, some have barriers, and others have no protection at all.
At GG the footprints in the snow suggested people regularly stand right on the edge. In fact one of our party observed someone running around the edge with a camera. The fence that has been mentioned extends around a part of the shakehole but is not intended to stop the public visiting the edge (even the sheep were grazing on the inside of it). There is an information/warning sign at the top. Everyone with an interest in this popular cave, landowners, authorities, cavers, seem happy with the situation as is normal for the Dales. Potholes that are fenced seem to be for the benefit of stock protection ? either protecting the stock from falling in or conserving a unique habitat from grazing.
Most public safety restrictions seem to have little impact on caving (fences, barriers, unlocked gates etc). In some discussions I have witnessed and on some topics raised on this forum public safety has been mentioned as a reason to lock, gate or otherwise secure access to prevent the public hurting themselves. If there is a need to lock a cave up for public safety then I would be interested in hearing the justification for that and any opinions cavers may have either way.
In terms of any liability I?m informed of the legal term Volenti non fit injuria ('to one who volunteers, no harm is done'). Essentially, the underlying legal principle it covers is that if a recreational user voluntarily agrees to accept the risks involved in pursuing an activity (walking in the countryside for example), and fully understands the nature and extent of those risks, then he has no claim against the occupier if injury then results. Furthermore the Occupiers? Liability Acts themselves incorporate this same common law principle. Section 2(5) of the 1957 Act (which deals with liability towards the occupier?s own visitors) says:
(5) The common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor.
Similarly section 1(6) of the 1984 Act (which deals with the occupier?s liability towards others, such as trespassers) says:
(6) No duty is owed by virtue of this section to any person in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by that person.
My intention in starting this thread is not to serve up drivel but to start a discussion and seek opinion on the above. I hope that is possible.
At GG the footprints in the snow suggested people regularly stand right on the edge. In fact one of our party observed someone running around the edge with a camera. The fence that has been mentioned extends around a part of the shakehole but is not intended to stop the public visiting the edge (even the sheep were grazing on the inside of it). There is an information/warning sign at the top. Everyone with an interest in this popular cave, landowners, authorities, cavers, seem happy with the situation as is normal for the Dales. Potholes that are fenced seem to be for the benefit of stock protection ? either protecting the stock from falling in or conserving a unique habitat from grazing.
Most public safety restrictions seem to have little impact on caving (fences, barriers, unlocked gates etc). In some discussions I have witnessed and on some topics raised on this forum public safety has been mentioned as a reason to lock, gate or otherwise secure access to prevent the public hurting themselves. If there is a need to lock a cave up for public safety then I would be interested in hearing the justification for that and any opinions cavers may have either way.
In terms of any liability I?m informed of the legal term Volenti non fit injuria ('to one who volunteers, no harm is done'). Essentially, the underlying legal principle it covers is that if a recreational user voluntarily agrees to accept the risks involved in pursuing an activity (walking in the countryside for example), and fully understands the nature and extent of those risks, then he has no claim against the occupier if injury then results. Furthermore the Occupiers? Liability Acts themselves incorporate this same common law principle. Section 2(5) of the 1957 Act (which deals with liability towards the occupier?s own visitors) says:
(5) The common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor.
Similarly section 1(6) of the 1984 Act (which deals with the occupier?s liability towards others, such as trespassers) says:
(6) No duty is owed by virtue of this section to any person in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by that person.
My intention in starting this thread is not to serve up drivel but to start a discussion and seek opinion on the above. I hope that is possible.
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
I believe the principle has been severely watered down using the Unfair Contract Terms Act and various regulations which spawned from it. Simply put if someone did not warn you of a specific hazard which you then were hurt by, then you could sue that other person. The key words are fully understands which now offers plenty of wriggle room for accident chasing lawyers. Of course it should not apply to a situation such as a person wandering around the icy lip of GG shaft as the hazard should be obvious. But who knows what someone might try? At least it appears if the authorities are now speaking out against some of the clearly stupid acts which occur.Badlad said:
Please also note that abandoned mine entrances, shafts and outlets are different; there is a clear legal duty to protect against "accidental entry" where ever the entrance is under Sec 151 of the 1954 Mines and Quarries Act.
Peter Burgess
New member
How sad that the discussion is turning to legal liabilities, and away from simple matters of safety for others.
nickwilliams
Well-known member
That's a gross over simplification. I suggest you read the BMC's guide to CROW to get a more nuanced view.
Robert Scott
Member
Hello Tim,
As Bob said
"The key words are fully understands which now offers plenty of wriggle room for accident-chasing lawyers."
May I suggest that you seek legal opinion or even better find a test case on those two words "fully understands"?
Perhaps that is why the NHS Litigation Authority has set aside several billions of our pounds to contest such cases. In the NHS we do not seek to harm or injure our patients, yet seem to be beset by such allegations.
I doubt that you will get a definitive answer to your question on this forum.
Kindest regards
Robert
As Bob said
"The key words are fully understands which now offers plenty of wriggle room for accident-chasing lawyers."
May I suggest that you seek legal opinion or even better find a test case on those two words "fully understands"?
Perhaps that is why the NHS Litigation Authority has set aside several billions of our pounds to contest such cases. In the NHS we do not seek to harm or injure our patients, yet seem to be beset by such allegations.
I doubt that you will get a definitive answer to your question on this forum.
Kindest regards
Robert
Blakethwaite said:
Do you have any stats to back that generalisation up?
Last year's City of York Council report didn't seem to indicate students were any more high risk than any other demographic (in fact 1/3rd of incidents in the past two years were people under 18, so only students in the pre-university sense)
Just curious as I own a house very close to the river and my experience is that it is drunken race goers and children that tend to have problems. Perhaps an unfair comment against students from you there.
martinm
New member
Kevlar said:
I think students are least of the problem, they tend to be intelligent young people. It tends more to be young children, they have no fear. Which is dangerous. My daughter was the same when she was young. She'd do the assault course at my nearby outdoor leisure centre with few problems, she loved it. Even the high level traverses, but of course they were designed with safety in mind...
Blakethwaite
New member
Fulk said:
You know, I honestly can't remember if it was a joke or not now. As a suggestion, it certainly has some merit. :
But certainly, the York students I've caved with since then weren't crying into their beers about it so I shan't lose too much sleep...
